1: \NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}

2: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}

3: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amscd,bbm}

4: \usepackage{graphicx}

5: \usepackage{cite}

6: %\twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname]

7: 

8: \jot = 1.5ex

9: \def\baselinestretch{1.1}

10: \parskip 5pt plus 1pt

11: \evensidemargin 0.0in   \oddsidemargin  0.0in

12: \textwidth  6.4in       \textheight 8.9in

13: \topmargin -1.0cm       \headsep    1.0cm

14: 

15: \parindent 0pt

16: 

17: \begin{document} 

18: 

19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

20: %                     Titel Page                                    %

21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

22: 

23: \thispagestyle{empty}

24: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

25: \setcounter{footnote}{1}

26: 

27: \vspace*{-1.cm}

28: \begin{flushright}

29: TUM-HEP-503/03\\

30: DO-TH 03/05

31: \end{flushright}

32: \vspace*{1.8cm}

33: 

34: \centerline{\Large\bf Seesaw Neutrino Masses with Large Mixings}

35: \vspace*{3mm}

36: \centerline{\Large\bf from Dimensional Deconstruction}

37: 

38: 

39: \vspace*{18mm}

40: 

41: \centerline{\large\bf 

42: K.R.S. Balaji$^a$\footnote{E-mail: \texttt{balaji@hep.physics.mcgill.ca}}, 

43: Manfred Lindner$^b$\footnote{E-mail: \texttt{lindner@ph.tum.de}},

44: and 

45: Gerhart Seidl$^b$\footnote{E-mail: \texttt{gseidl@ph.tum.de}}}

46:       

47: \vspace*{5mm}

48: \begin{center}

49: {\em $^a$ Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Dortmund,}\\

50: {\em Otto-Hahn-Stra{\ss}e 4, 44221 Dortmund, Germany}\\[3mm]

51: {\em $^b$ Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Physik-Department,\\ 

52: Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen,}\\

53: {\em James-Franck-Stra{\ss}e, 85748 Garching, Germany}

54: \end{center}

55: 

56: 

57: \vspace*{20mm}

58: 

59: \centerline{\bf Abstract}

60: We demonstrate a dynamical origin for the dimension-five seesaw operator 

61: in dimensional deconstruction models. Light neutrino masses arise  

62: from the seesaw scale which corresponds to the inverse lattice spacing. 

63: It is shown that the deconstructing limit naturally prefers maximal 

64: leptonic mixing. Higher-order corrections which are allowed by gauge 

65: invariance can transform the bi-maximal into a bi-large mixing.

66: These terms may appear to be non-renormalizable at scales smaller 

67: than the deconstruction scale.

68: 

69: %\keywords{Keyword1; keyword2; keyword3.}

70: 

71: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}

72: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

73: 

74: \newpage

75: 

76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

77: %                     Introduction                                  %

78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

79: \section{Introduction}

80: In contrast to the quark sector, the present state-of-the-art neutrino 

81: experiments \cite{sksno} demand large or even maximal mixings.

82: An attempt to unification requires new physics beyond the standard model (SM). 

83: For instance, in  SO(10) models, one can relate the spectra of both the charged and 

84: neutral fermions in agreement with known phenomenology \cite{babubarr}. Broadly, most 

85: efforts to explain flavour physics are either 

86: (i) strongly model dependent (see e.g. \cite{barr2000}) or (ii) require initial 

87: assumptions on the neutrino spectra (see e.g. \cite{bala2000}). 

88: Another option is to explore the framework of dimensional deconstruction

89: \cite{ark001}, where the effects of higher dimensions originate as a pure dynamical effect in the 

90: infrared limit. In this context, it is interesting to study the impact on the Yukawa 

91: sector of a model \cite{seidl003}. Here, we recover the salient aspects of 

92: neutrino phenomenology, namely large mixings and light masses, from a completely massless 

93: four dimensional theory at some large scale. The lightness of the 

94: neutrino masses are an outcome of 

95: deconstruction which projects out the dimension-five seesaw operator

96: \cite{yana79}. This scenario contains massless Nambu-Goldstone modes 

97: corresponding to a symmetry which can be associated with large mixings. All 

98: of these basic features can be easily understood by considering a simple 

99: two-site lattice model. 

100: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

101: %                     Framework                                     %

102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

103: \section{The two-site model}

104: \label{twosite}

105: Consider a 

106: $G = G_{SM}\times SU(m)_1\times SU(m)_2$ gauge theory for deconstructed extra 

107: dimensions, where $G_{SM}$ denotes the SM 

108: gauge group. The left-handed lepton doublets are denoted by 

109: $\ell_\alpha=(\nu_{\alpha L},\:e_{\alpha L})^T$ and the corresponding 

110: right-handed charged leptons by $E_\alpha$, where the Greek indices denote the usual

111: flavors $(e,~\mu~\mbox{and}~\tau)$. We will assume that 

112: $\ell_\alpha$ and $E_\alpha$ 

113: transform as $\overline{m}_1$ under $SU(m)_1$ and 

114: $\ell_\beta$ and $E_\beta$ transform as $m_2$ under $SU(m)_2$. We introduce the 

115: right-handed neutrinos 

116: $N_{\alpha}$ and $N_{\beta}$, where $N_{\alpha}$ transforms as 

117: $\overline{m}_1$ under $SU(m)_1$ while $N_{\beta}$ transforms as $m_2$ under 

118: $SU(m)_2$. The scalar link field $\Phi$ connects as the bi-fundamental

119: representation $(m_1,\overline{m}_2)$ the neighboring $SU(m)_i$ groups.

120: This field theory is summarized by the ``moose''

121: or ``quiver'' \cite{geor86} diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:twosites}.

122: \begin{figure}

123: \begin{center}

124: \includegraphics*[bb = 228 646 355 717]{cases}

125: \end{center}

126: \vspace*{-8mm}

127: \caption{\small{The two-site model.}}

128:   \label{fig:twosites}

129: \end{figure}

130: The most general renormalizable Yukawa interactions for the neutrinos are then given by

131: \begin{equation}\label{Yukawa1}

132:  \mathcal{L}_Y=Y_{\alpha}\overline{\ell_\alpha}\tilde{H}N_{\alpha}

133:  +Y_{\beta}\overline{\ell_\beta}\tilde{H}N_{\beta}+

134: f\overline{N_{\alpha}^c}

135:  \Phi N_{\beta}

136:  +{\rm h.c.}~.

137: \end{equation}

138:  The kinetic term for the link field is 

139: $\sim (D_\mu \Phi)^\dagger D^\mu \Phi

140: ~;~ D_\mu\Phi= (\partial_\mu -ig_1A_{1\mu}^a T_a+ig_2A_{2\mu}^aT_a)

141: \Phi~$, where $A_{i\mu}^a$ $(i=1,2)$ are the gauge fields and $T_a$ represent the 

142: group generators along with the dimensionless gauge couplings, $g_1$ 

143: and $g_2$. In (\ref{Yukawa1}), $\tilde{H}=i\sigma^2 H^\ast$ is the charge 

144: conjugated Higgs doublet and $Y_{\alpha},Y_{\beta},f$ are complex 

145: Yukawa couplings of $\mathcal{O}(1)$. Note that in (\ref{Yukawa1}) the bare Dirac and 

146: Majorana mass terms of the types $\sim\overline{N_{\alpha}^c}N_{\beta}$ 

147: and $\sim\overline{N^c_{\alpha}}N_{\alpha}$ or

148: $\sim\overline{N^c_{\beta}}N_{\beta}$ are forbidden by invariance

149: under the group $G$. For a suitable scalar potential the field

150: $\Phi$ can acquire a VEV such that $\langle \Phi\rangle=M_x$, thereby

151: generating a mass for the scalar field. $M_x$ is identified with 

152: the deconstruction scale at which the $SU(m)_1\times SU(m)_2$ 

153: symmetry is broken down to the diagonal $SU(m)$, thereby eating one adjoint

154: Nambu-Goldstone multiplet in the process. The corresponding 

155: lattice spacing is $a\sim 1/M_x$. After spontaneous symmetry breaking,

156: the light effective Majorana mass matrix takes the form

157: \begin{equation}

158: \mathcal{M}_\nu=Y_{\alpha} Y_{\beta}\frac{\epsilon^2}{fM_x}

159: \left(

160: \begin{matrix}

161:  0 &1\\

162:  1 & 0

163: \end{matrix}

164: \right)~.

165: \label{matrix2}

166: \end{equation}

167: Here, $\epsilon\equiv\langle H\rangle\simeq 10^2\:{\rm GeV}$ is the

168: electroweak scale and $M_x\simeq 10^{15}\:{\rm GeV}$ is the seesaw scale. 

169: This simple analysis leads to our main observations. It is not difficult to 

170: identify the mass matrix in (\ref{matrix2}) as the

171: one which arises from the usual dimension-five operator of the type

172: $\sim \nu\nu HH$. In other words, for length scales $r \gg a \sim 1/M_x$, the

173: renormalizable and gauge invariant Yukawa interaction in (\ref{Yukawa1}) 

174: reproduces the effects of the fifth dimension. Whereas, for $r\ll a$, we 

175: retain a completely renormalizable four-dimensional interaction as 

176: defined in (\ref{Yukawa1}). In addition, contrary to the conventional seesaw 

177: operator, dimensional deconstruction can naturally lead to maximal mixings

178: between the two active neutrino flavors, $\nu_\alpha$ and $\nu_\beta$. This 

179: is realized due to the $\Phi$ field which mediates a symmetry between each of the 

180: fermions $(N_{\alpha,\beta})$. This symmetry can be interpreted as an interaction 

181: which conserves a charge $L_\alpha - L_\beta$ which is reflected in the resulting mass 

182: matrix for $N_{\alpha,\beta}$. This is retained after symmetry breaking 

183: as there exists the diagonal subgroup 

184: $SU(m)$ which respects the symmetry such that the $\Phi$ field would 

185: transform as $(m,\overline m)$. In the gauge sector, this unbroken 

186: symmetry corresponds to the presence of a zero mode and is 

187: $A^{a(0)}_\mu \sim (g_2 A_{1\mu}^a+g_1A^a_{2\mu})$.

188: The Dirac sector of the model remains diagonal due to the nature of this

189: construction while maximal mixings 

190: are introduced from the heavy Majorana sector of the resulting 

191: seesaw operator. Equivalently, the

192: qualitative features of this system are not altered even if one allows for

193: both the fermions and scalars to be link variables. We use this freedom

194: when we discuss the phenomenology for this mechanism in 

195: section \ref{threesite}. 

196: 

197: Next, we would like to understand how generic is the interaction described in 

198: (\ref{matrix2}). To answer this question, we consider three possible modifications to

199: Fig.~\ref{fig:twosites} which are 

200: summarised in Fig. \ref{fig:case1and2} and Fig. \ref{fig:case3} as 

201: cases (i)-(iii).

202: \begin{figure}

203: \begin{center}

204: \includegraphics*[bb = 245 528 343 589]{cases}

205: \hspace{1cm}

206: \includegraphics*[bb = 242 411 330 471]{cases}

207: \end{center}

208: \vspace*{-8mm}

209: \caption{\small{Cases (i) (left panel) and (ii) (right

210: panel).}}

211:   \label{fig:case1and2}

212: \end{figure}

213: \begin{figure}

214: \begin{center}

215: \includegraphics*[bb = 258 292 345 354]{cases}

216: \end{center}

217: \vspace*{-8mm}

218: \caption{\small{Case (iii).}}

219:   \label{fig:case3}

220: \end{figure}

221: Clearly, in case (i), only higher-order terms of the form 

222: $\sim \overline{\ell_\alpha} \tilde H \Phi N_{\beta}$ are possible, but a priori, there is

223: no information on mixings or masses. In case (ii), we have an interaction $\sim 

224:  Y_{\alpha}\overline{\ell_\alpha}\tilde{H}N_{\alpha}

225:  +Y_{\beta}\overline{\ell_\beta}\tilde{H}N_{\alpha}+

226: f\overline{N_{\alpha}^c}

227:  \Phi N_{\beta}$ which leads to $\mathcal{M}_\nu=0$. Interestingly, for 

228: case (iii), depending on the representation of the fermionic fields, 

229: we can envisage two distinct interactions. The first one is of the type $\sim 

230:  Y_{\alpha}\overline{\ell_\beta}\tilde{H}N_{\alpha}

231:  +Y_{\beta}\overline{\ell_\beta}\tilde{H}N_{\beta}$

232: which gives Dirac masses with arbitrary masses and mixings. The second possibility is 

233: of the type $\sim 

234:  Y_{\alpha}\overline{\ell_\beta}\tilde{H}N_{\alpha}

235:  +fM_x \overline {N_{\alpha}^c} N_{\beta} $ 

236: which again results in $\mathcal{M}_\nu=0$. Note that in the latter

237: case, gauge invariance allows for a bare mass term which is in contrast to 

238: (\ref{Yukawa1}).

239: From the different cases (i)-(iii) we observe a restrictive pattern for the 

240: allowed fermion masses; this is unlike 

241: (\ref{Yukawa1}) which ensures a renormalizable 

242: mass term for all of the resulting Dirac and Majorana fermions. This maximises the 

243: allowed Yukawa interactions and leads also to maximal mixings.  

244: In a realistic framework, the basic structure of (\ref{Yukawa1}) is always expected to 

245: be borne out as we shall demonstrate.

246: \section{A realistic model}

247: \label{threesite}

248: We examine a generalization to the case of a moose mesh \cite{greg002}.

249: Consider a $\Pi_{i=1}^4SU(m)_i$ gauge theory containing five scalar

250: link variables $\Phi_i$ $(i=1,\ldots,5)$ and the fermion fields $\Psi_\alpha$ is the 

251: set $\left\{\ell_\alpha,E_\alpha,N_\alpha\right\}$. This model is depicted in 

252: Fig.~\ref{fig:moosemesh} and up to mass dimension six, we have 

253: \begin{figure}

254: \begin{center}

255: \includegraphics*[bb = 235 529 349 639]{manysites}

256: \end{center}

257: \vspace*{-8mm}

258: \caption{\small{A four-site model.}}

259:   \label{fig:moosemesh}

260: \end{figure}

261: \begin{eqnarray}\label{phenoyuk}

262:  \mathcal{L}_Y &=& \sum_{\alpha}

263:   Y_{\alpha}\overline{\ell_\alpha}\tilde{H}N_{\alpha}

264:  +f_1\overline {N_e^c} \Phi_2^\ast N_\mu+f_2\overline {N_e^c}

265:  \Phi_1N_\tau+\frac{f_3}{\Lambda}\overline {N_\mu^c} (\Phi_3)^2 N_\mu\nonumber\\

266: &&+\frac{f_4}{\Lambda}\overline {N_\tau^c} (\Phi_4^\ast)^2 N_\tau+

267: \frac{f_5}{\Lambda}\overline {N_\mu^c} \Phi_3 \Phi_4^\ast N_\tau+

268: \frac{f_6}{\Lambda}\overline{N_e^c}(\Phi_5^\ast)^2N_e+\ldots

269:  +{\rm h.c.},

270: \end{eqnarray}

271: where the dots represent non-renormalizable interactions of the leptons

272: with effective scalar operators involving only the fields $H$ and/or $\Phi_i$. 

273: In (\ref{phenoyuk}), $Y_{\alpha}$ and $f_i$ $(i=1,\ldots,6)$ are complex couplings 

274: and $\Lambda (\gg \langle\Phi_i\rangle)$ denotes the scale such that, for 

275: lattice spacing $a \ll 1/\Lambda$, the theory is fully renormalizable. After symmetry 

276: breaking and giving universal VEVs

277: $\langle\Phi_i\rangle\equiv M_x$, the Dirac and Majorana mass 

278: matrices take the form 

279: \begin{equation}\label{matrix1}

280: \mathcal{M}_D=\epsilon

281: \left(

282: \begin{matrix}

283:  Y_{e} &\lambda^2& \lambda^2\\

284:  \lambda^2&Y_{\mu}&\lambda^2\\

285:  \lambda^2&\lambda^2 &Y_{\tau}

286: \end{matrix}

287: \right),\quad

288: \mathcal{M}_R=M_x

289: \left(

290: \begin{matrix}

291:  \lambda f_6 & f_1& f_2\\

292:  f_1&\lambda f_3&\lambda f_5\\

293:  f_2&\lambda f_5&\lambda f_4

294: \end{matrix}

295: \right),\quad\lambda = \frac{M_x}{\Lambda}<1~,

296: \end{equation}

297: where only the order of magnitude of the terms with mass dimension $\geq 6$ has

298: been indicated. We note that in (\ref{matrix1}), as a consequence of the lattice 

299: geometry $\mathcal{M}_D$ is nearly diagonal while the Majorana sector

300: carries the $\overline L=L_e-L_\mu-L_\tau$ symmetry which is softly broken by a nonzero

301: $\lambda$. In the limit 

302: $\lambda \to 0$, both (\ref{Yukawa1}) and (\ref{phenoyuk}) reproduce similar features.

303: %\subsection{Numerical estimates}\label{numerics}

304: Neglecting the small mixing in the Dirac sector\footnote{The contributions

305: from the charged lepton sector are identical to $M_D$ and can be neglected.} 

306: and setting $Y_\mu \simeq Y_\tau$ alongwith real couplings, 

307: $f_1=-f_2=f_3=f_4=f_5\equiv f$, the effective light neutrino mass matrix 

308: comes to a familiar pattern \cite{grim001} with

309: \begin{equation}\label{numatrix}

310: \mathcal{M}_\nu\simeq

311: \frac{Y_\mu\epsilon^2}{4f^3M_x}\left(

312: \begin{matrix}

313:  0 & 2\lambda Y_{e}f^2 & -2\lambda Y_ef^2\\

314:  2\lambda Y_ef^2 & Y_\mu f(\lambda^2f_6-f) & -Y_\mu f(\lambda^2f_6+f)\\

315: -2\lambda Y_ef^2 & -Y_\mu f(\lambda^2f_6+f) & Y_\mu f(\lambda^2f_6-f)

316: \end{matrix}

317: \right)+ \mathcal{O}(\lambda^3)\:~.

318: \end{equation}

319: The relations between the solar and atmospheric mass-squared differences,

320: $\Delta m_\odot^2$ and $\Delta m_{\rm atm}^2$ respectively, and the solar

321: mixing angle $\theta_{12}$ are

322: \begin{eqnarray}\label{data}

323: \frac{\Delta m_\odot^2}{\Delta m_{\rm atm}^2}&\simeq&

324: 2\sqrt{2}\lambda^3\left(\frac{Y_e}{Y_\mu} \frac{f_6}{f}\right)

325: +\mathcal{O}(\lambda^4)~,\nonumber\\

326: {\rm tan}\:\theta_{12}&\simeq&1-\frac{\lambda}{2\sqrt{2}}

327: \left(\frac{Y_\mu}{Y_e}\frac{f_6}{f}\right)

328: +\frac{\lambda^2}{16}\left(\frac{Y_\mu}{Y_e}\frac{f_6}{f}\right)^2

329: +\mathcal{O}(\lambda^4)~.

330: \end{eqnarray}

331: For illustration, we choose $\lambda=0.22$, $Y_e=f$, $Y_\mu=f_6$, 

332: $Y_{\mu}/Y_e = 2.5$ and we 

333: obtain an atmospheric mixing angle $\theta_{23}\simeq \pi/4$ and a

334: reactor mixing angle close to zero, {\it i.e.}, $U_{e3}\simeq 0$. Such an

335: allowed choice minimally alters the basic features of a renormalizable

336: Lagrangian, leading to a soft 

337: breaking of the $\bar L$ symmetry. Furthermore,

338: taking $\Delta m_{\rm atm}^2=2.5\times 10^{-3}\:{\rm eV}^2$, we obtain a normal

339: neutrino mass hierarchy with

340: $\Delta m_\odot^2 \simeq 7.5 \times 10^{-5}\:{\rm eV}^2$ 

341: and $\theta_{12}\simeq 32^\circ$ which is in agreement with the MSW LMA-I 

342: solution \cite{fogli002}. For the above values, the system predicts an 

343: effective 

344: neutrinoless double beta decay mass, $m_{ee} \simeq 10^{-3}\:{\rm eV}$. 

345:  

346: %\subsection{Alternative models}

347: We briefly outline two different variations to (\ref{phenoyuk}).

348: \begin{figure}

349: \begin{center}

350: \includegraphics*[bb = 226 252 361 371]{manysites}

351: \end{center}

352: \vspace*{-8mm}

353: \caption{\small{A three-site model.}}

354:   \label{fig:threesites}

355: \end{figure}

356: Let us first consider a $\Pi_{i=1}^3 SU(3)_i$ product gauge group with a

357: representation content as specified in Fig. \ref{fig:threesites} where

358: the arrows define as before the field transformations. 

359: %Upon symmetry breaking, the 

360: %gauge group is broken down to the diagonal $SU(3)$ preserving the conserved 

361: %lepton number $\overline{L}$. 

362: We use the Froggatt-Nielsen

363: mechanism \cite{frog79} to break the $\overline L$ symmetry by putting on 

364: each of the sites $SU(3)_1$ and $SU(3)_2$

365: two extra SM singlet fields; these are two scalars $(\phi_e,~\phi_\mu)$ and

366: two heavy Dirac fermion fields $(F_e~,F_\mu)$.

367: To retain soft-breaking of the $\overline L$ 

368: symmetry, we need to impose a $Z_4$ symmetry $\Psi_\alpha\longrightarrow

369: -\Psi_\alpha$, $\phi_\alpha\longrightarrow -\phi_\alpha$,

370: $F_{\alpha L }\longrightarrow {\rm i}F_{\alpha L}$,

371: $\Phi_3\longrightarrow -\Phi_3$, where $\alpha=e,\mu$. We assume that the $SU(3)_1$ 

372: and $SU(3)_2$ symmetries are broken by bare Majorana mass terms

373: $\sim\overline{F_{\alpha R}^c}M_{\alpha} F_{\alpha R}$

374: at some scale $M_\alpha\gg M_x$. When the fields $\phi_\alpha$ aquire

375: the VEVs $\langle\phi_\alpha\rangle=M_x$ the heavy right-handed

376: fermions $F_{\alpha R}$ are integrated out leading to the dimension-five terms

377: $\sim\lambda f_3 M_x \overline{N^c_{\mu}}N_\mu$

378: and $\sim \lambda f_6 M_x\overline{N^c_e}N_e$, where $\lambda\simeq M_x/M_\alpha$. 

379: The right-handed neutrino mass matrix is given by

380: ${\mathcal{M}}_R$ in (\ref{matrix1}) with $f_4,f_5\simeq 0$ and hence one 

381: obtains the relations as in (\ref{data}).

382: Alternatively, if we perform the identification, $\Phi_2 \to 0$ and 

383: $SU(3)_i\rightarrow U(1)_i$ and the fields $(\ell_\alpha, N_\alpha)$

384: $(\alpha=e,\mu,\tau)$ are assigned appropriate $U(1)$ charges, it is not

385: difficult to derive a model leading to (\ref{matrix1}). 

386: 

387: In conclusion, we argue that upon deconstruction (i) a light neutrino mass is a 

388: general result and (ii) maximal mixing is inevitable due

389: to the specific Yukawa interactions in (\ref{Yukawa1}).  

390: In the limit of a large lattice site model (of size $N\gg 1$), one can draw comparisons 

391: to the genuine extra-dimensional scenarios (of radius $R$) with the 

392: identifications 

393: to the five-dimensional gauge couplings, $g_5(y_i) \to \sqrt{R/N} g_i$, where

394: $y_i$ denotes the fifth coordinate. In this analysis, we have limited 

395: ourselves to describing the physics of a periodic lattice where it is

396: sufficient to examine the periodic interval of any one Brillouin zone.

397: In general, we predict a small $U_{e3}$ which depends on the 

398: pattern of the underlying $\overline L$ symmetry breaking.

399: 

400: \section*{Acknowledgments}

401: K.B. was supported by the ``Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung, Wissenschaft,

402: Forschung und Technologie, Bonn'' under contract no. 05HT1PEA9. M.L. and G.S by the

403: ``Sonderforschungsbereich 375 f\"ur Astroteilchenphysik der Deutschen

404: Forschungsgemeinschaft'' (M.L. and G.S.). K.B. thanks the physics department 

405: (TUM) for hospitality during completion of this work.

406: 

407: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

408: \bibitem{sksno}

409: Super--Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Fukuda, Phys.Rev.Lett.

410: {\bf 81}, 1562 (1998); Phys.Lett. {\bf B467}, 185 (1999);

411: SNO Collaboration, Q.R.~Ahmad {\it et al.}, 

412: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 071301 (2001);

413: KamLAND Collaboration, A. Piepke, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. {\bf 91}, 99 (2001). 

414: 

415: \bibitem{babubarr}

416: K.S. Babu and S.M. Barr, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 85}, 1170 (2000). 

417: 

418: \bibitem{barr2000}

419: S. M. Barr and I. Dorsner, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B585}, 79 (2000);

420: G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Phys.Rept. {\bf 320}, 295 (1999).

421: 

422: \bibitem{bala2000}

423: For quasi-degenerate spectra see for example,

424: S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, and M. Ratz, 

425: Phys.Lett. {\bf B544}, 1 (2002); K.R.S. Balaji, A.S. Dighe, 

426: R.N. Mohapatra, and M.K. Parida, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 84}, 5034 (2000); 

427: and for hierarchical spectra see for example, 

428: K.R.S. Balaji, A. Per\'ez-Lorenzana, and A.Y. Smirnov, 

429: Phys.Lett. {\bf B509}, 111 (2001). 

430: 

431: \bibitem{ark001}

432: N. Arkani-Hamed, A.G. Cohen, and H. Georgi,

433: \newblock Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 86}, 4757 (2001);

434: C.T. Hill, S. Pokorski, and J. Wang,

435: \newblock Phys.Rev. {\bf D64}, 105005 (2001)

436: 

437: %\bibitem{hill001}

438: %C.T. Hill, S. Pokorski, and J. Wang,

439: %\newblock Phys.Rev. {\bf D64}, 105005 (2001).

440: 

441: \bibitem{seidl003}

442: G. Seidl, {\tt hep-ph/0301044}.

443: 

444: \bibitem{yana79}

445: T. Yanagida,

446: \newblock in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on the Unified Theory and Baryon

447:   Number in the Universe}, KEK, Tsukuba,

448:   (1979); M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky,

449: \newblock {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on Supergravity,} Stony Brook, New York, 1979,

450:   1979; R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi\'c, 

451: Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 44}, 912 (1980).

452: 

453: \bibitem{geor86}

454: H.~Georgi,~Nucl.Phys.~{\bf B266},~274~(1986);

455: M.R.~Douglas and G.~Moore,

456: \newblock {\tt hep-th/9603167}.

457: 

458: \bibitem{greg002}

459: T.~Gregoire and J.~G.~Wacker,

460: \newblock {\tt hep-ph/0207164}.

461: 

462: \bibitem{grim001}

463:  Y. Nir, JHEP {\bf 0006}, 039 (2000); W. Grimus and L. Lavoura,

464: \newblock JHEP {\bf 07}, 045 (2001).

465: 

466: \bibitem{fogli002}

467: G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino, A. Palazzo,

468: and A.M. Rotunno, {\tt hep-ph/0212127}. 

469: 

470: \bibitem{frog79}

471: C.D. Froggatt and H.B. Nielsen,

472: \newblock Nucl.Phys. {\bf B147}, 277 (1979).

473: 

474: \end{thebibliography}

475: \end{document}

476: 

477: